Scientists prove Global Warming caused by the sun, not humans.

Scientists prove Global Warming caused by the sun, not humans.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/

I hate it when non-scientists report on scientific findings -- they have NOT demonstrated that humans don't have an effect, they have demonstrated that cosmic rays may have an effect.

What's needed now is a verification of the degree of these two potential effects before we can decide if we still need to be careful of our potential effect on the atmosphere.

Even if we do find that it's mainly caused by the sun, we still need to give thought to whether (and how) we should do something about it to preserve that status-quo that we now enjoy.

Herbie

Step 1. Completely deplete ozone layer

Step 2. Verify if there's an effect

Step 3. Use unbanned substances to build a long lasting refrigator system in a complex powered by rays magnified through a giant orbital magnifying glass. Also ensure it can sink underground from a push of a button incase of unforeseen weather anomalies. (use a Magma Generator to power the refrigation while underground)

(revision, make step 3 the first step)

@Dr Herbie:  I've read through a lot of the links ... what they have proven is that cosmic rays ionize particles, creating seeds for water or ice formation (which contradicts your statement, "cosmic rays may have an effect"; this experiment proves they do, unless they are lying).  This is what the AGW crowd has been denying and censoring for more than a decade.  The critical point is that cosmic rays create the seeds particles required to create clouds, and at rates far beyond what vapours in the lower atmosphere can produce. 

It also reveals previously unknown chemistry, including up to 1000x increased seed formation in the presence of ammonia in minute quantities (1 part in 30 billion).    This is an actual scientific experiment with actual results that can and should be duplicated.

@androidi:  What are you talking about?  A refrigerator? 

Ahem.

Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed - the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds.

GW-deniers like Lawrence Solomon should learn how to read scientific journals before they go spouting off at the mouth.

3 hours ago,Richard.Hein wrote

This is what the AGW crowd has been denying and censoring for more than a decade.

I stay out of these threads, but I take exception to this.

When has the scientific community at-large ever censored anything?

Please, please, stop pretending there is some kind of "liberal conspiracy" out there to suppress "the truth".

@W3bbo:

Here! Here! Liberals don't viciously attack those that they disagree with. Even in politics they appear weak because they don't rise to the bully pulpit like their conservative counterparts. Contrast Rush Limbaugh with any show on NPR and you'll find the tone completely different. IMO, "liberals" or "progressives" are systems guys who want to fix problems. "Conservatives" are self-serving bullies who wrap their arguments with simple concepts like pride and hate that the simple minded easily attach to. Now I'm not saying the ALL liberals and ALL conservatives follow these norms but it is the trend IMO.

32 minutes ago,DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

@W3bbo:

Here! Here! Liberals don't viciously attack those that they disagree with. Even in politics they appear weak because they don't rise to the bully pulpit like their conservative counterparts. Contrast Rush Limbaugh with any show on NPR and you'll find the tone completely different. IMO, "liberals" or "progressives" are systems guys who want to fix problems. "Conservatives" are self-serving bullies who wrap their arguments with simple concepts like pride and hate that the simple minded easily attach to. Now I'm not saying the ALL liberals and ALL conservatives follow these norms but it is the trend IMO.

I'd like to point out the irony of your statement

@W3bbo:

That would be true assuming I'm a liberal...

Well it isn't true anyway. There is nothing inherent in conservatism, or right-of-centre politics in general that calls for denialism or intellectually-weak arguments, this is just symptomatic of a contrarian vote-winning strategy.

@W3bbo: You don't watch Fox News much do ya? How about the conservatives who deny global warming during a blizzard saying "see, there's no global warming." If that's not intellectually weak I don't know what is.

@W3bbo:  What does this have to do with liberals or conservatives?  To me, nothing.  I don't care what the party lines have decided.  I'm more interested in the details that are reported in the articles linked to in the OP.  The censorship was blocking the funding and research of Svensmark et al, and taking more than a decade to follow up on a valid hypothesis and research. 

2 minutes ago,Richard.Hein wrote

@W3bbo:  What does this have to do with liberals or conservatives?  To me, nothing.  I don't care what the party lines have decided.  I'm more interested in the details that are reported in the articles linked to in the OP.  The censorship was blocking the funding and research of Svensmark et al, and taking more than a decade to follow up on a valid hypothesis and research.

Perhaps Svensmark received no funding for a decade because the hypothesis was weak to begin with. The results of this study bear this out.

5 hours ago,W3bbo wrote

*snip*

I stay out of these threads, but I take exception to this.

When has the scientific community at-large ever censored anything?

Please, please, stop pretending there is some kind of "liberal conspiracy" out there to suppress "the truth".

I think there's politics in the academic community, yea. Not necessarily liberal-conservative politics. Just that people are biased towards certain theories and are more likely to support people who agree with them, and scrutinize people who disagree with them. Academics aren't inherently more objective than anyone else, so their personalities get in the way.

In a lot of academic departments it just so happens, for certain reasons, that a lot of the positions they take line up with liberal politics. But in economics and business departments, you'll see the positions they take line up with more conservative politics. For example, its much easier to be accepted in economics depts. if you argue for free trade than if you argue against it. Anti-free trade economists have been attacked as "fringe". The most liberal leaning bias will be found in departments like sociology, psychology, anthropology, and so on, not to mention humanities departments. 

Something that I think is making the global warming debate even more difficult, is because politicians have become involved, automatically, skeptics are seen as being motivated by politics, so that makes people with the more pro-AGW views act defensive and paranoid ..

But just because there are politics going on inside academia, that doesn't make skeptics automatically right, either.

I first heard the sunspot theory from an astronomy professor in the 90s, not a politician, by the way. Long before the current debates over global warming started. People in astronomy have long disagreed with people in environmental science. Astronomers are also far more likely to be conservative and say they believe in God, too, by the way. Things line up that way.

That's all fine, (but archetypical "liberals" aren't against free-trade, but whatever). The prolem here is that none of us are climate scientists, we have no place discussing findings or evidence. Stick to software and computer science, I'd much rather see people get banned in threads discussing the merits of Cathedral vs. The Bazaar .

god is dead.

and no one cares.

and if there is hell

I'll see you there.

The title for my post was an experiment to see what kind of reaction it would get by commentators. The CERN experimental results don't prove that Global Warming isn't partially created from human activities, such as land use changes, fossil fuel burning, etc. The result do show that anywhere from half to all of the global warming might be due to this cloud seeding.
When I began my research into the state of Climate Science, I quickly found out how appallingly bad this young science was being conducted. One of the first things that I had to look up was what the heck "ad hominem" was, and that is telling. The more I researched, the more the politics behind global warming became apparent.
I am becoming a climate change expert. I have spent a considerable amount of time researching this topic, perhaps more than any other topic in my 50 years of life so far. I will continue to study and learn, but so far there hasn't been anything that shows that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere should cause anyone any concern.
On a final note, I would not have posted a climate change topic in this forum if Channel 9 had not aired the comments from one of their employees that global warming was something he was concerned about.